Do DSLR's still have a place

With Old AF you have to find an edge, locking on a black jacket in the dark you will struggle but get there in the end. A vertical edge you should be OK, motor speed on the camera is a bigger liability than the AF system. IMO.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Regarding older cameras, if they could take good pictures once (not necessarily a given) then they can still take similar pictures. Be aware too that lenses are every bit as important, and an old camera with a poor lens will seem even worse now.

You should also be aware that they aren't made equally. I've had a couple of Nikons: D610 build quality was about the same as an entry level Sony A58, and the D70 is a piece of Flexi plastic junk. Be aware of what you're buying. Finally on viewfinders, pentamirrors can be small and dark, and some of the lower-mid range DSLRs can give a rather miserable view of what you're trying to photograph. Small aperture zooms make this much worse.

No reason not to buy a DSLR, but choose carefully for a good outcome.
Click to expand...

This made me think.

My photography has changed since I had DSLR's and I couldn't take some of the pictures I take now with a DSLR. For example pictures with people in them when the focus is away from the central area and also pictures taken with manual focus. People pictures couldn't be taken as easily with a DSLR because the focus points possibly don't cover the whole sensor so I'd have to alter the composition or crop and DSLR's don't have the MF aids that mirrorless have.

I think DSLR's are too limiting for me now but if you don't need to MF and your subject is usually in an area with a well performing focus point covering it then I suppose they're worth looking at but I'd still rather get a cheap mirrorless camera :D
 
Last edited:
Focus lock and recompose is a basic principle of even film cameras. Providing it not in continuous mode of course.
 
Barney said:
Focus lock and recompose is a basic principle of even film cameras. Providing it not in continuous mode of course.
Click to expand...
Once you've become used to the ability of a modern mirrorless to af pretty much anywhere in the frame (and then track whatever you've focused on as it moves within the frame), focus lock and recompose seems such a blunt instrument.
 
But, it does not mean that the ability to focus on a subject at the edge of the frame cannot be done, as an earlier post implied.
 
Last edited:
Barney said:
Focus lock and recompose is a basic principle of even film cameras. Providing it not in continuous mode of course.
Click to expand...

Focus and recompose and hope that depth covers the movement you've done. Sorry. That was good enough when all I had was small apertures and small prints but not today.
 
Barney said:
But, it does not mean that the ability to focus on a subject at the edge of the frame cannot be done, as an earlier post implied.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. DSLR's can't focus to the edge of the frame because they don't have anything like full coverage so you have three choices, alter the composition, crop for the composition you want or focus and recompose and hope the depth or the size of the print hides what you've done.
 
woof woof said:
Focus and recompose and hope that depth covers the movement you've done. Sorry. That was good enough when all I had was small apertures and small prints but not today.
Click to expand...
That is the only way I focus and compose
, even on my XT2. I’ve never had a problem. I dont letting the camera pick where it focuses. I’m sure it works pretty much all the time but I prefer single point focus point
 
Nebular89 said:
That is the only way I focus and compose
, even on my XT2. I’ve never had a problem. I dont letting the camera pick where it focuses. I’m sure it works pretty much all the time but I prefer single point focus point
Click to expand...

If you've never had a problem I guess you always shoot at small apertures and/or don't look too closely. Many DSLR's had few really good focus points, maybe only one, and in those days it made sense to use one focus point but things have moved on.

I don't let the camera choose where to focus either. I select eye detect and let the camera do it but that's a very different thing from letting the camera decide what to focus on. When I'm not using eye AF I position the focus point where I want it. I do still believe that if you have the time to do it MF is still the most accurate way to focus, with mirrorless of course not with a DSLR, as you get to choose exactly where the point of focus is.
 
Nebular89 said:
That is the only way I focus and compose
, even on my XT2. I’ve never had a problem. I dont letting the camera pick where it focuses. I’m sure it works pretty much all the time but I prefer single point focus point
Click to expand...
And with a modern mirrorless and hundreds of AF points you can do exactly the same - but without having to recompose - fame the scene, pick the focus point, shoot.
 
woof woof said:
Of course it does. DSLR's can't focus to the edge of the frame because they don't have anything like full coverage so you have three choices, alter the composition, crop for the composition you want or focus and recompose and hope the depth or the size of the print hides what you've done.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all, if two cameras in the same scene select the focus point of an eye, aperture & Fl being equal, both images will have the same qualities and the same things "to hide" ie depth of field limitations and OOF areas.

Enjoy your photography!
 
woof woof said:
If you've never had a problem I guess you always shoot at small apertures and/or don't look too closely. Many DSLR's had few really good focus points, maybe only one, and in those days it made sense to use one focus point but things have moved on.

I don't let the camera choose where to focus either. I select eye detect and let the camera do it but that's a very different thing from letting the camera decide what to focus on. When I'm not using eye AF I position the focus point where I want it. I do still believe that if you have the time to do it MF is still the most accurate way to focus, with mirrorless of course not with a DSLR, as you get to choose exactly where the point of focus is.
Click to expand...
Not at all, i regularly use f2-f4. I have genuinely never noticed a difference between the 2. If there is then it’s not enough to worry about. A lot of my favourite photos aren’t what you’d called tack sharp. For one reason or another.

To be fair I do use face detection sometimes, but not that often. I only use it as the XT2 reverts back to single point focus when it doesn’t detect a face.
 
Faldrax said:
And with a modern mirrorless and hundreds of AF points you can do exactly the same - but without having to recompose - fame the scene, pick the focus point, shoot.
Click to expand...
Might be ok with a touch screen but having to use the tiny joy stick on the back every time would drive me mad
 
Nebular89 said:
Not at all, i regularly use f2-f4. I have genuinely never noticed a difference between the 2. If there is then it’s not enough to worry about. A lot of my favourite photos aren’t what you’d called tack sharp. For one reason or another.

To be fair I do use face detection sometimes, but not that often. I only use it as the XT2 reverts back to single point focus when it doesn’t detect a face.
Click to expand...

Then with respect you haven't looked closely enough to see the effect focusing and recomposing has and anyway it's now clear you wouldn't mind and that's maybe a good thing for you. I do pixel peep as I like to see a nice file and I like to be sure that what I want to be the main point of focus is.

What makes a good photo is an entirely different thing. Tack sharpness has never been anywhere near the top of the list for me and I have any number of pictures with minor to serious image quality issues which I like but I think the point here is the ability of kit to allow you/us to get the picture we want. DSLR's and SLR's and RF's just wouldn't enable me to do what I want now because my photography has changed over the years. It's not because I'm particularly demanding it's just that I like the compositional freedom and the consistency that even modest modern kit brings and I'd find DSLR's too limiting now.
 
Barney said:
That makes no sense at all, if two cameras in the same scene select the focus point of an eye, aperture & Fl being equal, both images will have the same qualities and the same things "to hide" ie depth of field limitations and OOF areas.

Enjoy your photography!
Click to expand...

It makes perfect sense. I'll explain.

What I was talking about is the ability of mirrorless to focus anywhere in the frame. DSLR's can't do that because they have a limited number of focus points usually in the central area.

So. With mirrorless I have compositional freedom and I can have, for example, a face anywhere in the frame and still be able to AF (or MF) on it. You can't do that with a DSLR with its focus points all clustered together in the central area and poor if any MF aids. The only way to do it is to alter your composition or shoot with an available focus point and then crop the picture to get the framing you wanted.

Focus and recompose is not the answer for me as it will lead to the point of focus moving. It's only the answer if the photographer is willing to accept the fact that the point of focus will not be where it originally was or uses dof to cover the fact or just doesn't care. All are valid I suppose :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Then with respect you haven't looked closely enough to see the effect focusing and recomposing has and anyway it's now clear you wouldn't mind and that's maybe a good thing for you. I do pixel peep as I like to see a nice file and I like to be sure that what I want to be the main point of focus is.

What makes a good photo is an entirely different thing. Tack sharpness has never been anywhere near the top of the list for me and I have any number of pictures with minor to serious image quality issues which I like but I think the point here is the ability of kit to allow you/us to get the picture we want. DSLR's and SLR's and RF's just wouldn't enable me to do what I want now because my photography has changed over the years. It's not because I'm particularly demanding it's just that I like the compositional freedom and the consistency that even modest modern kit brings and I'd find DSLR's too limiting now.
Click to expand...
The only time it really bugs me is with landscape, I move the focus point then.

No I understand, it’s just always felt more natural to me recompose. Not sure why. But then again the favourite camera I’ve owned was a Leica M2. The lack of light meter made it too much of pain to use in the long run though
 
This got me thinking about manual focussing and a quick search shows that I can get a third party split image screen for my Nikon D600.

As I grenerally use the Nikon with manual focus lenses, I might get one of those. That said, I can focus manual lenses on the D600 with the standard screen, well enough for my needs.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
This got me thinking about manual focussing and a quick search shows that I can get a third party split image screen for my Nikon D600.

As I grenerally use the Nikon with manual focus lenses, I might get one of those. That said, I can focus manual lenses on the D600 with the standard screen, well enough for my needs.
Click to expand...
I looked into that a while ago but never tried it. I’ve yet to use the D80 I just got outside but having used it inside a little it does seem that it’s the optical viewfinder aspect of film cameras that I really like so I can see myself winding film down a bit and trying a DSLR with a split image screen. The only 2 film cameras I’m likely to use is my Rollei 35 as it’s so easy to carry around and fingers crossed a Canon iv Barnack copy I’ve ordered. If I don’t like the Canon iv I’ll return it and probably look into the split image screen on a DSLR
 
The D80 is pretty good at bringing up details in the shadows (for a 20 year old camera). Have a go at underexposing an image then use the in camera processing (D Lighting-Enhanced) to give you an idea of how good the shadows are.
 
Dslr's a now only realistically found on the second hand shelves and at greatly reduced prices.
Very few of them are still repairable.
However as long as they still work they are as good as they ever were.
But they are not systems to build for the future as even their lens technology and image quality is getting left increasingly far behind.
but if you need a high quality disposable camera they could be an obvious choice.
 
Last edited:
My experience is slightly different than most as I am now disabled and in a wheelchair following a brain haemorrhage. I still have and use my Nikon D500, I find its ergonomics to be just about perfect for my hands. Its more rounded curves making th body less pointy, as are all mirrorless. I did however, move to fx mirrorless with the Z5 and then the Z8. My reason for finally buying the Z8 are practical for my disability. A sensor door thingy. I have little feeling in my right hand, so changing lenses was very difficult now I can take my time. The same eyepiece as the D500 and similar menu system. Also and finally a screen that moves into portrait mode. Finally, silent mode. I shoot garden birds, although not in flight, and the shutter on the D500 would scare all birds off that are within ten yards. Silent mode is ace.
I would however, still use a DSLR for shear comfort in the hand and the column of buttons that were on the left (Nikon)useful for me as my right hand is all but useless and I therefore have to reach over with my left hand to operate, well everything.
I love my D500 and enjoy using it still. It's menu system can mirror the Z8 for me A=birds B=flowers C=Landscapes D=Moon
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Dslr's a now only realistically found on the second hand shelves and at greatly reduced prices.
Very few of them are still repairable.
However as long as they still work they are as good as they ever were.
But they are not systems to build for the future as even their lens technology and image quality is getting left increasingly far behind.
but if you need a high quality disposable camera they could be an obvious choice.
Click to expand...
Yeah I wouldn’t build up a whole kit really. I have a 35mm lens, 50mm on the D80, and that’s pretty much all I’d want. Perhaps a 35mm equivalent but I like the 50mm focal length.
Depending on how much I use it I may buy a few cheap ones, like the D80 and just use them until they die.
It’s a shame really as trying the d80 has confirmed that I really like an optical viewfinder. Unless I get an xpro or spend the money and get a Leica it’s only second hand stuff now
 
I’d compare the current market for DSLR’s to SLR sales in the early 2000’s, back then a Canon 30e or EOS 3 were great cameras at not before seen bargain prices. As now the 6dII or 5dIV
But there was no point to an EOS300 or 3000, as now I wouldn’t recommend anyone waste money on a similar spec DSLR.

There’ll be Nikon equivalents of those but I’m not familiar.
 
Phil V said:
I’d compare the current market for DSLR’s to SLR sales in the early 2000’s, back then a Canon 30e or EOS 3 were great cameras at not before seen bargain prices. As now the 6dII or 5dIV
But there was no point to an EOS300 or 3000, as now I wouldn’t recommend anyone waste money on a similar spec DSLR.

There’ll be Nikon equivalents of those but I’m not familiar.
Click to expand...
I doubt I'll be spending much on DSLR's. They are more used for fun really, same as my film cameras. For anything really important I use the Fuji.
 
Nebular89 said:
Might be ok with a touch screen but having to use the tiny joy stick on the back every time would drive me mad
Click to expand...
I have a touch screen on my A7iv, but only use it when navigating the menus - the joysick is much quicker and easier to use, while the camera is still to my eye (but I used the same method with my old DSLR, so am used to it).
 
I don't know a lot about photography, and having never used a DSLR this is just an observation.
Yesterday I had my first, "Diabetic Retina screening" .
It was done by the NHS at a local doctors surgery. I noticed attached to the large desk top device, that you place you chin on, was a Canon D70.
So it looks like the NHS thinks they still have a use.
 
Carpy2001 said:
It was done by the NHS at a local doctors surgery. I noticed attached to the large desk top device, that you place you chin on, was a Canon D70.
So it looks like the NHS thinks they still have a use.
Click to expand...

Was it part of the screening kit? As I said at the beginning, if they produced good images once then they will still produce images to the same standard. In the case of lab and especially clinical test equipment, consistent reliability is required, and you may well find bits of kit running from windows 7 or even XP in various places - this can be problematic sometimes, and I have some instruments 10 to 20 years old which still work well but can't be used with current computer soft and hardware.
 
Yes they do, but you are probably asking the wrong person They are fine, but a lot better with a camera using film inside them! I use both but there is a greater feeling of satisfaction with film when it all comes together. DSLR if I am in a hurry (rarely) but film if I want to feel I have achieved something.

OK, OK, Il' let myself out!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Carpy2001 said:
I don't know a lot about photography, and having never used a DSLR this is just an observation.
Yesterday I had my first, "Diabetic Retina screening" .
It was done by the NHS at a local doctors surgery. I noticed attached to the large desk top device, that you place you chin on, was a Canon D70.
So it looks like the NHS thinks they still have a use.
Click to expand...
I feel your sting!
 
ancient_mariner said:
Was it part of the screening kit? As I said at the beginning, if they produced good images once then they will still produce images to the same standard. In the case of lab and especially clinical test equipment, consistent reliability is required, and you may well find bits of kit running from windows 7 or even XP in various places - this can be problematic sometimes, and I have some instruments 10 to 20 years old which still work well but can't be used with current computer soft and hardware.
Click to expand...
I still have a laptop which must be on it's last legs by now but still soldiers on. It has windows XP and I keep it running because my Nikon film CS5 scanner will not run on any later operating system unless I buy an after market software programme at over £100 - no thanks. The Nikon software originally supplied works and works well. In fact I could not be bothered to learn the new programme so why change?

The resulting scans are downloaded onto a memory stick and used in my desktop with the current Adobe PS. A bit convoluted but the Nikon last series of scanners have a D-max exceeding anything else that was produced for the home market of 4.2. The nearest anything else that came close was the latest and I believe may be now discontinued Epson V850 flatbed at 3.8. Also the Nikon had the capability of scanning RAW which I think no other maker has attempted to do. So windows XP stays.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ancient_mariner said:
... if they produced good images once then they will still produce images to the same standard.
Click to expand...
As has so often been said: "if it ain't broke - don't fix it!"
 
Carpy2001 said:
I don't know a lot about photography, and having never used a DSLR this is just an observation.
Yesterday I had my first, "Diabetic Retina screening" .
It was done by the NHS at a local doctors surgery. I noticed attached to the large desk top device, that you place you chin on, was a Canon D70.
So it looks like the NHS thinks they still have a use.
Click to expand...
The d70 must have been current when the kit was bought and assembled. There would be no good reason to change it.
Some times in the future it will fail and probably It will be replaced with the latest kit. The NHS will not be buying any more DSLRs

Last week I had a cataract replaced the device that measured the focal length for the new lens was made by Zeiss. And looked very expensive. It. Was also totally computer controlled .
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It makes perfect sense. I'll explain.

What I was talking about is the ability of mirrorless to focus anywhere in the frame. DSLR's can't do that because they have a limited number of focus points usually in the central area.

So. With mirrorless I have compositional freedom and I can have, for example, a face anywhere in the frame and still be able to AF (or MF) on it. You can't do that with a DSLR with its focus points all clustered together in the central area and poor if any MF aids. The only way to do it is to alter your composition or shoot with an available focus point and then crop the picture to get the framing you wanted.

Focus and recompose is not the answer for me as it will lead to the point of focus moving. It's only the answer if the photographer is willing to accept the fact that the point of focus will not be where it originally was or uses dof to cover the fact or just doesn't care. All are valid I suppose :D
Click to expand...
Really a bit of a faff. One of the reasons I prefer a non AF camera film or digital it will always do as I ask and not refocus when the sensor thinks it it needs to. Each to their own and what floats your boat, but don't you think that cameras have gone too far and people don't really understand how to work them properly. Looking at the handbook for my F2 has 46 pages the one for my D800 has 442. Who on earth has ever read it cover to cover and are they any the wiser?
Not for me-keep it simple and you can concentrate on what you are photographing. Photography is classed as an art and technology has taken away some of the best parts of it. Especially creation and personal skill.

Who wrote it - Leo Tolstoy?:whistle:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorthEastCamera said:
Really a bit of a faff. One of the reasons I prefer a non AF camera film or digital it will always do as I ask and not refocus when the sensor thinks it it needs to. Each to their own and what floats your boat, but don't you think that cameras have gone too far and people don't really understand how to work them properly. Looking at the handbook for my F2 has 46 pages the one for my D800 has 442. Who on earth has ever read it cover to cover and are they any the wiser?
Not for me-keep it simple and you can concentrate on what you are photographing. Photography is classed as an art and technology has taken away some of the best parts of it. Especially creation and personal skill.

Who wrote it - Leo Tolstoy?:whistle:
Click to expand...
I would argue that the features in a modern mirrorless have emphasised the 'art' side of photography rather than diminished it, with increases in dynamic range and ISO handling, you can set aperture and shutter to what you want artisticly (and the camera will handle the exposure via ISO), choose a focus point wherever it suits your composition (rather than being restricted to a small central cluster of points).
Yes, you can spend time fine tuning the setup, but the majority of that is for less common situations, or more challenging technical situation (like tracking bird in flight), where again, once you have it set up, you are free to concentrate on just taking photos, letting the camera handle the tricky technical bits.
 
How one uses a current camera is usually down to personal choice. So with my A7III, it's set to spot meter, so I take measurement for exposure from a part of the image that I think will give me the best chance to control the overall exposure. It is also set to focus on a single spot, so I choose the point of focus before I make the exposure. Normally the camera is set to aperture priority, controlling depth of field, but I'm also comfy to use shutter priority or full manual if needed. It's just a camera, doing what it's told.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top